Could Atheistic Evolutionary Theory be a lie?

But the probability of an Intelligence evolving...........
in fundamental energy is infinitely more probable than for intelligence to begin in carbon based life forms.......... because fundamental energy has always existed.... as was postulated by Stephen Hawking Ph. D. in chapter 13 of his book, Stephen Hawking's Universe. That chapter was entitled The Anthropic Principle and contained an Agnostic / Atheistic version of The Cyclic Model of the Universe..... but near death experiencer and Atheist Mellen Benedict was shown a Theistic Version of Evolutionary Theory.......

https://www.near-death.com/reincarnation/experiences/mellen-thomas-benedict.html#a05

So... G-d evolved......
later on angels were created......
a third of them fell........
later on Adam and Eve were created partly to set in motion a series of events that would eventually lead even to the restoration of the fallen angels...... fallen Watchers....... fallen ghosts.....


NDE of Dr. Richard Eby verifies old earth and gap theory.

 

Dennis....your ideas and fixation on the unprovable NDE concept have painted you as something of a nut job and this thread in no exception.

 

........ A valid point for now.......
but sooner or later we all have a near death experience..... or a full fledged death experience...... and if our consciousness continues outside our bodies.......... taking at least something of a look at this can assist all of us to make the transition more easily..........

 

As you know my own Mother had an NDE and became a very different person afterward. The issue has less to do with the concept and more to do with YOUR fixation. As for "God" and Evolution, accepting the first on faith while rejecting the last regardless of massive evidence creates an impression of willful ignorance.

 

I voted Yes as in 'Yes it COULD be.' I dont necessarily think it is, but its possible.

More and more I think life was seeded here, and then evolution began, possibly with a bit of coaxing in one direction or another here and there.

I think single celled organizisms turned into fish, then lizards, then mammals, then apes, then someone/something started monkeying around with the apes and we resulted.

None of that makes evolution a 'lie', but I do think theres folks out there who know a great deal more than they're saying about our true history.

 

Why can’t you write God? Why the blank? Will he punish you?

 

Good points..... one of the reasons why I like NDE accounts so much is because up until 1990 when I got most of my ideas on spirituality and theology from the Jewish and Christian scriptures..........
I was largely in error pretty much across the board...... .but NDE accounts are
relatively simple and easy to understand in comparison to the Bible.

 

I HIGHLY recommend you get a book on Buddhism....start with the Dancing Wu Li masters as it is also a study on how Quantum theory is actually akin to Eastern Philosophy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dancing_Wu_Li_Masters
It could change your life and mind.

 

Just before the 55 minute mark in this video Rabbi Alon Anava describes how after his near death experience........
he knew events from his girlfriend's life that she had never told him about.... but he saw all of her life... .during his NDE.

He was irreligious in the extreme.... until his NDE.

He describes asking about the events that he saw from her life... and she asked him....."How do you know?"

This is one of the reasons why near death experiencers themselves... are convinced that what they went through has a basis in a higher reality.

 

From years of 'debates' on the TOE, and decades of study on origins, my answer to the OP is a resounding 'yes!' Universal common descent is an unscientific hoax. Its followers are dedecated True Believers , unable to examine the subject scientifically. I've tried for YEARS, on this forum, to have a SCIENTIFIC discussion about this subject, but the militant evolutionists won't have it. They disrupt any rational discussion with hysteria, strawmen, ad hom, and anything to protect their sacred Beliefs, that they defend with jihadist zeal.

So 'lie?' ..i would be more generous and say, 'hoax,' but that is semantics. It is definitely one of the biggest 'scientific' deceptions in the history of scientific inquiry.

 

Interesting, as I have personally tried to engage you in this debate only to have you ignore and distract from any and all documented and science driven data presented to you. Actually the last time I attempted this you became somewhat unpleasant and I used the "Ignore" function as a means of reminding me of who and what you are. I would attempt to discuss this again if you have changed this attitude but otherwise I see no point.

 

Bunch of jelly-brained nonsense.

 

You make no effort to understand the science in the first place, let alone debate it rationally.

 

The paucity of any subject matter knowledge indicates that there is no veracity to the allegation that "decades of study" ever occurred.

 

The pretense that biological evolution is "atheistic" is discredited by the scientific reality being embraced by most enlightened religionists with no inherent conflict.

There are numerous "theistic" creation myths whose poetic truths are diminished by miscasting them as literally factual.

Both science and mythology contribute to our understanding and, when either masquerades as the other, both are diminished.

As Darwin (clearly not an atheist) propounded, religionists can derive spiritual awe from his scientific insight:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.
​

Why would enthusiasts for any or all of the gods want to place strict limits upon them in the mysterious ways they reputedly work?

​

 

By the way, one of the best layman sources of information about evolution, at least if you don't want to sit down and read something about it, is Aron Ra via his YouTube channel. He recently "debated" the one and only Kent Hovind--

--and it's a hoot:

 

.Could atheistic evolutionary theory be false? I am assuming that this means if an intelligent universe, and it does look to contain its own intelligence, can arise from unintelligence, by simple chance? Therefore being atheistic in nature, not required a pre existing intelligence being involved. Well sure it could be false. To dismiss such a possibility is irrational. For we cannot know what we do not know. And we simply do not know for sure that pure chance would have created a universe that is full of intelligence. For the factors involved are such that if various things were off by such a small number, this universe would not exist. So, the number of lucky chances involved are beyond astronomical in scope. Looks like it takes much more faith to believe in this than in the idea that some intelligence outside of the physical universe may have played a role.

Evolution of the universe of life, of all things may very well be the result of intelligence. Not a anthropomorphic god, but a super intelligence separate from this possible virtual reality that we call the universe.

 

If, neither should intrude upon the proper purview of the other.

This is a good example of the cartoon-version fake dichotomy: a believer in no gods vs a believer in no gods with a single exception arguing about a matter that is not within the purview of either.

Religious dogmas are immutable and evoke emotional adherence; scientific data is infinitely mutable and intellectually validated.

In fact, the disparate disciplines operate in separate spheres, and neither addresses the other.

All the empirical evidence that organisms change as they reproduce over time in no way dispels the poetic concept of a very large turtle bearing an unchanging earth on its back, nor does the allegorical conceit negate the rational view.

 

I voted the third option. While I see evolution as convincing, I am open to the possibility of it being false or not inaccurate. Not a diliberate lie though. Lying would serve no purpose.

 

Good point......
I do believe that there is some truth to the general idea of Evolutionary Theory.... but it got exaggerated due to our insecurities and anger.

www.CarbonBias.blogspot.ca/

 

Well said!

 

Thank you for that intriguing quotation from Darwin!

 

There is grandeur in this view of life.

 

Evolution is a fact. Anyone who does not understand that is a moron, and needs to study "survival of the fittest". The earth is a constantly changing place. When those changes occur, those who benefit from the change survive, prosper, and reproduce. Those to which the changes are detrimental either severely loose population or go extinct. Because genetic mutation is a constant, sometimes changes are dramatic, while at others they are minor, but with few exceptions they always occur....